[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DEP5] License field in the first paragraph ?

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 09:04:51AM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On la, 2011-01-22 at 18:48 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> > > Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:42:17PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :

> > > > There seems to be consensus to add an optional License field to the
> > > > first paragraph. […]

> > > Here is a first attempt. Comments welcome: the discussion was a bit
> > > complex and I am not sure if I summarised it well.

> > One aspect I don't see covered in your patch: ‘Copyright’ and ‘License’
> > only make sense as a pair (details in the preceding discussion). I think
> > the standard should specify that if either is used, both must be used.

> I find it reasonable to use only License, to indicate that a specific
> license applies to the package as a whole, without having any one party
> have a copyright on the package as a whole. If the package contains of
> files A and B, with A being GPL2+ and B being GPL3+, the header
> paragraph's License field could say GPL3+. There would still be no need
> to have a Copyright field in the header paragraph.

> I would prefer to keep things simpler, and not have a rule about when
> either field requires the other.

If a Copyright is declared at the top level (a compilation copyright),
doesn't that necessarily require that we be given a copyright license as

So a License could appear without a Copyright (to indicate the effective
license of a work), but a Copyright should not appear without a License.

If that's true, I think it's important to call it out in the spec.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: